Scribd
Upload
77 views2 pages

WHO Vs Aquino

- Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by the WHO to work in the Philippines and claimed diplomatic immunity. - A Philippine judge issued a search warrant for Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects, claiming a customs violation. - The Philippine government, through the OSG and Foreign Secretary, stated that Dr. Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity under the Host Agreement and asked the court to quash the search warrant. - The issue was whether Dr. Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity. The court held that he was entitled to immunity, as the executive branch had recognized his immunity and it is not the court's role to question the executive branch's determination on diplomatic immunity.

Uploaded by

Rion Margate
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
77 views2 pages

WHO Vs Aquino

- Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by the WHO to work in the Philippines and claimed diplomatic immunity. - A Philippine judge issued a search warrant for Dr. Verstuyft's personal effects, claiming a customs violation. - The Philippine government, through the OSG and Foreign Secretary, stated that Dr. Verstuyft had diplomatic immunity under the Host Agreement and asked the court to quash the search warrant. - The issue was whether Dr. Verstuyft was entitled to diplomatic immunity. The court held that he was entitled to immunity, as the executive branch had recognized his immunity and it is not the court's role to question the executive branch's determination on diplomatic immunity.

Uploaded by

Rion Margate
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

WHO vs Aquino

Facts:

Petitioner Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by the WHO from his last station in Taipei to the
Regional Office in Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health Services. Respondent judge
issued a search warrant directing the search and seizure of the personal effects of petitioner for
alleged violation of RA 4714 (amending sec. 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code).

Upon protest, the regional director of WHO requested the suspension of the search warrant
since petitioner enjoys diplomatic immunity from search as accorded to members of diplomatic
missions pursuant to the Host Agreement. However, respondent judge maintained the search
warrant, unless restrained by a higher court.

The OSG appeared and filed an extended comment stating the official position of the executive
branch of the Philippine Government that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic
immunity, he did not abuse his diplomatic immunity, and that court proceedings in the
receiving or host State are not the proper remedy in the case of abuse of diplomatic immunity.
The Solicitor General accordingly joined petitioner Verstuyft's prayer for the quashal of the
search warrant. Respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied quashal of the search
warrant, disregarding Foreign Secretary Romulo's plea of diplomatic immunity on behalf of Dr.
Verstuyft.

Issue:

WON Petitioner Verstuyft is entitled "to all privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities
accorded to diplomatic envoys in accordance with international law" under section 24 of the
Host Agreement.

Held:

Yes. The executive branch of the Philippine Government has expressly recognized that
petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host
Agreement. The Department of Foreign Affairs formally advised respondent judge of the
Philippine Government's official position that accordingly "Dr. Verstuyft cannot be the subject
of a Philippine court summons without violating an obligation in international law of the
Philippine Government" and asked for the quashal of the search warrant, since his personal
effects and baggages after having been allowed free entry from all customs duties and taxes,
may not be baselessly claimed to have been "unlawfully imported" in violation of the tariff and
customs code as claimed by respondents COSAC officers. The Solicitor-General, as principal law
officer of the Government, likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic
immunity and asked for the quashal of the search warrant.
It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers
that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look
beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of
diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as
in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon
appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General in
this case, or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle
that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to
embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted
doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of
the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."

You might also like